This is great, thank you. Here's a related thought:
There are two passages in the Talmud that provide reasons for the destruction of the second Temple. One, in Tractate Yoma, 9b, says that it was destroyed because it held "Sinat Hinam" often translated as baseless hatred. The other, in Gittin 55b, tells a story of a host who accidentally invites his enemy, Bar Kamsa, to a party, when he intended to invite his friend, the similarly named Kamsa. The host humiliates Bar Kamsa at the party, who initiates a revenge plot that involves having the Roman governor send an animal to the Temple to be sacrifice which is not technically fit for sacrifice by Jewish law. At the advice of Rabbi Zecharia Ben Avokolos, the sacrifice is not given, as that would be improper, nor is Bar Kamsa executed, which would show the Romans that they had been played, as he has not technically committed a crime worthy of the death penalty. The Romans take this as a sign of rebellion, and thus beings the opression that lead to the first Jewish Revolt, and ultimately the destruction of the Temple. As a later gloss on the story, R. Yochanan says that it is the humility of R. Zecharia ben Avokolos that caused the destruction of the Temple.
Notably, the story of Kamsa and bar Kamsa doesn't mention baseless hatred at all. Nevertheless, most people understand the comment about baseless hatred in Yoma to be referring to the enmity between Bar Kamsa and the host in this story. However, I think it's saying something very different.
R. Zecharia ben Avokolos's humility is the idea that somehow Judea can escape the notice of empire, that it can get by without engaging in politics. His naïve understanding of religious law without a thought to the wider world, to the very real power dynamics at play, which is important context for making a decision about how to act. Whether there is a Jewish state or not, Jews live in the world, act in political contexts, and refusing to recognize or acknowledge them, to withdraw to a context-less understanding of halakha.
Jesse A.'s post is, in some circumstances, so fitly spoken that we might readily agree with it without reservations. But it is a half-truth. The other "half" is that politics can be an all-absorbing vortex.
There is the story of Talleyrand's response when told that the Duc de Jenesaisquoi had just died: "What was his motive?"
Do we need solemn reminders of the dangers today of politicizing everything? Of the absurdity of being obsessed with contests over who and what should govern? We shouldn't be. Until we are alert to that madness, equally with the folly of being oblivious to politics, we should not endorse Jesse's opinion so unqualifiedly.
I certainly don't disagree with this, but the story is a political story? R Zecharia ben Avokolos wants to respond to a political act as if politics don't exist, as if the principles of religious law can be applied without understanding the political contexts in which they are being applied. Interpreting every act as political, no matter the context, would be an equally unwise position, but it's not one that this story has much to say about.
This is great, thank you. Here's a related thought:
There are two passages in the Talmud that provide reasons for the destruction of the second Temple. One, in Tractate Yoma, 9b, says that it was destroyed because it held "Sinat Hinam" often translated as baseless hatred. The other, in Gittin 55b, tells a story of a host who accidentally invites his enemy, Bar Kamsa, to a party, when he intended to invite his friend, the similarly named Kamsa. The host humiliates Bar Kamsa at the party, who initiates a revenge plot that involves having the Roman governor send an animal to the Temple to be sacrifice which is not technically fit for sacrifice by Jewish law. At the advice of Rabbi Zecharia Ben Avokolos, the sacrifice is not given, as that would be improper, nor is Bar Kamsa executed, which would show the Romans that they had been played, as he has not technically committed a crime worthy of the death penalty. The Romans take this as a sign of rebellion, and thus beings the opression that lead to the first Jewish Revolt, and ultimately the destruction of the Temple. As a later gloss on the story, R. Yochanan says that it is the humility of R. Zecharia ben Avokolos that caused the destruction of the Temple.
Notably, the story of Kamsa and bar Kamsa doesn't mention baseless hatred at all. Nevertheless, most people understand the comment about baseless hatred in Yoma to be referring to the enmity between Bar Kamsa and the host in this story. However, I think it's saying something very different.
R. Zecharia ben Avokolos's humility is the idea that somehow Judea can escape the notice of empire, that it can get by without engaging in politics. His naïve understanding of religious law without a thought to the wider world, to the very real power dynamics at play, which is important context for making a decision about how to act. Whether there is a Jewish state or not, Jews live in the world, act in political contexts, and refusing to recognize or acknowledge them, to withdraw to a context-less understanding of halakha.
I couldn't agree more. Thanks.
Jesse A.'s post is, in some circumstances, so fitly spoken that we might readily agree with it without reservations. But it is a half-truth. The other "half" is that politics can be an all-absorbing vortex.
There is the story of Talleyrand's response when told that the Duc de Jenesaisquoi had just died: "What was his motive?"
Do we need solemn reminders of the dangers today of politicizing everything? Of the absurdity of being obsessed with contests over who and what should govern? We shouldn't be. Until we are alert to that madness, equally with the folly of being oblivious to politics, we should not endorse Jesse's opinion so unqualifiedly.
The story of Talleyrand's reply is no joke.
I certainly don't disagree with this, but the story is a political story? R Zecharia ben Avokolos wants to respond to a political act as if politics don't exist, as if the principles of religious law can be applied without understanding the political contexts in which they are being applied. Interpreting every act as political, no matter the context, would be an equally unwise position, but it's not one that this story has much to say about.